That's fine. But they wouldn't run into a situation where they are posting something like 20 threads in the span of something like half an hour in the same section. (And if they somehow would, be they new or old, seems like some sort of a break between creating so many threads wouldn't be all that inappropriate, after all, as mentioned before, we already have some limitations in place of how quickly someone can make posts or how multiple sequential posts from the same user are treated, so this type of thing wouldn't exactly be all that new or strange, nor would really get in the way any more than those existing things that are already in place.)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Limit amount of threads new members can create
- Thread starter timeconsumer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, looks like the same type of spam (diploma spam) is back flooding the iPhone forum once again. Currently the user seems to have posted 20 new threads (so far) in under 15 minutes--hard to make a valid claim for any real user, new or old, creating even close to 20 new threads in a span of about 15 minutes.
Some sort of reasonable flooding protection would have more than likely stopped this spammer by now and saved a forum being overtaken by spam (even if temporarily), all essentially without any effect on any real users, or even the need for anyone to actually intervene (which someone can still do when they have a moment to look into it all).
Some sort of reasonable flooding protection would have more than likely stopped this spammer by now and saved a forum being overtaken by spam (even if temporarily), all essentially without any effect on any real users, or even the need for anyone to actually intervene (which someone can still do when they have a moment to look into it all).
i see this plenty of times. mainly when there's a new iPhone on the horizon, once it's announced and another when it's released. usually a week or two around each. not spam, an actual user.
i think just limiting the amount of threads in a certain amount of time would be ok. not sure how to agree on the number. 5/48hrs.
i think just limiting the amount of threads in a certain amount of time would be ok. not sure how to agree on the number. 5/48hrs.
What you are describing isn't really the kind of thing that happens with floods of spam that basically prompted this thread and keep it alive, so to say. Some sort of reasonable flooding limits when it comes to creation of new threads at least shouldn't really get in the way of actual users starting new threads.
I don't think it has to be even that locke down. Even one per hour would stop a lot of the the hit-and-run spammers. They create an account, make 20-30 posts/threads, then never return. A once-per-hour limit would mean they have to plan...not likely.
That still seems too strict. 1x per 15 minutes for the first 48 hrs of membership would accomplish the same thing.
That still seems too strict. 1x per 15 minutes for the first 48 hrs of membership would accomplish the same thing.
There's another forum where I've been a member since ~2005 and have made in the neighborhood of 3K posts in that time. They recently put a global 5 minutes between posts block in the software that's never before been there.
It's incredibly annoying-at times I've logged in and see 2-3 unanswered questions to which I could add a short and helpful answer. The software makes me space out my responses.
It's somewhat different when it comes to just plain posts, but in this particular case it's more about new threads.
I think there should be a short waiting period on new threads. One or two days combined with a low number of posts.
While it would slow the spam it would also impact legitimate users who might want to start a new thread for help etc. There is no easy answer.
While it would slow the spam it would also impact legitimate users who might want to start a new thread for help etc. There is no easy answer.
You likely have no idea about the quantity of spam that gets blocked automatically on this forum. The little bit that does get through is only a fraction of the total. That little bit gets mopped up fairly quickly as they are reported and the staff delete them just as quick.
If the spam filters were turned off it would be a deluge of spam overrunning the site.
Be thankful that the little bit you see is all that you have to deal with.
When i see spam on the forums it is never a little bit. 15/20 new threads created by the same account within a small time period so that when i view the 'new threads' section it is nearly all full of spam. To me that is not a little bit, and it seems to me that a very easy way to stop it is to simply put a post/thread-starting limit on brand new accounts.
My experience when viewing the same section is much different than yours apparently. I rarely see any spam at all, and when I do its early in the morning, local time, and there aren't any mods online yet to scrape up the mess that the auto-filters didn't detect.
To implement a policy as suggested would likely cause far more blow back from the user base than it does from a few people whining about a little bit of spam they saw on the Internet. There's always going to be a little bit of dirt on the roadway.
Yeah, the vast majority I see are in the wee hours here. Today would be unusual in that there was one spammer hidden in three cockroach threads. /totally appropriate.
I'm curious to know why any users (if there are any) would be so outraged because a newly-joined member can't start more than, say 5 threads per hour on their very first day of being a member.
I'm not whining about spam, i am only suggesting a way of making the site a little better/easier to maintain.
This is like banging my head against a brick wall. It's ridiculously pointless to bother arguing with someone over something that would make their job easier.